"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being for himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and
the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond
his control."Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Article 25,

proclaimed by the United
Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948.

"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right
of everyone to an adequate standard of living ..., including adequate
food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living
conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the
realization of this right."International Covenant of Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, 1966.Ratified by Canada and entry
into force in Canada on 19 August 1976."Inadequate shelter and homelessness are growing plights in many
countries, threatening standards of health, security and even life itself.
Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living for themselves
and their families, including adequate food, clothing, housing, water
and sanitation, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions."Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements
and the Habitat Agenda,United Nations Conference on
Human Settlements (Habitat II), June 1996

"[P]overty is a serious breach of equality rights which I believe
has no place in a country as prosperous as ours. Experience suggests
that it is largely those who are most vulnerable in our society by virtue
of the various prohibited grounds of discrimination ... who are also
more likely to be poor.... It is now time to recognize poverty as a
human rights issue."Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay, Chair, Canadian
Human Rights Commission,Introduction to the 1997
Annual Report of the Commission, March 1998."Homelessness is the predictable result of private and public-sector
policies that exclude the poor from participating in the economic revolution,
while safety nets are slashed in the name of ‘global competitiveness’.
Moreover, the situation is perpetuated by a deep reluctance to tackle
the roots of the problem…

The principles of economic and social rights – an integral part
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... – are trampled without
regard or regret.

Philip Alston, Chair, UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, Genevain "Hardship in the Midst of
Plenty," The Progress of Nations 1998, NY: UNICEF."The Committee notes the omission from the [Canadian] Government's
written report and oral presentation of any mention of the problems of
homelessness.

Given the evidence of homelessness and inadequate living conditions,
the Committee is surprised that expenditures on social housing are as
low as 1.3 percent of Government expenditures."

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, GenevaFrom a 1992 Report Critical
of Canada’s Human Rights Record

1.
It Is Time to Act:

Homelessness is Unacceptable

When a few people in a community have no housing due to a fire or some
other tragic event, or when hundreds of people become displaced because
of some disaster, the community mobilizes. To do otherwise is unthinkable.

When many people are unhoused we have a community-wide crisis. When the
numbers are allowed to grow, and when all reasonable analyses point to
even more homeless people everyday, we have a disaster – a situation requiring
emergency relief and prevention measures – in the same way as when a flood
or a storm leaves many people homeless. All people must be protected from
becoming homeless, from having inadequate food, and from being exposed
to life and health-threatening circumstances.

When enough people care to learn about the nature and extent of the current
disaster they will see that there is a single fundamental fact about all
of the homeless: the very large gap between the cost of adequate housing
and the money available to pay for it. This is the beginning and the end
of the story about a key common feature of all the diverse individuals
we label ‘the homeless.’ They are people who once had housing but, for
a variety of reasons, are now unhoused.

As one of the most economically prosperous nations on earth, Canada is
a country with an enviable human rights record, including some of the
social and economic rights (health care, education, old age security).
But our public and private institutions are organized in such a manner
that one of the now ‘normal’ outcomes is that a growing number of people
are excluded from having an adequate and secure place to live. For some
this is a temporary situation, for some an occasional situation, for others
it is a long term reality.

Having no place to live means being excluded from all that is associated
with having a home, a surrounding neighbourhood and a set of established
community networks. It means being exiled from the mainstream patterns
of day-to-day life. Without a physical place to call ‘home’ in the social,
psychological and emotional sense, the hour-to-hour struggle for physical
survival replaces all other possible activities. Without an address it
is virtually impossible to access some essential social services and it
is very difficult to get a job.

People with no place to live, those who have no physical and psychological
place of their own to call home, are the most completely excluded
group of people in society. On becoming homeless, people enter a different
world from the rest of society. Survival is the main goal. It is a nightmare
world completely apart from the normal day-to-day pattern of living.

Most who find themselves in this situation migrate to the centre of larger
urban areas where some emergency survival services for people without
housing are available. Most roam from place-to-place and from service-to-service
to ensure their physical survival. The ‘dehousing’ processes operating
in society are producing a diaspora of the excluded, struggling to survive
without a place to call home.

2.
State of Emergency Declaration

Homelessness: A National
Disaster

We call on all levels of government
to declare homelessness a national disaster requiring emergency humanitarian
relief. We urge that they immediately develop and implement a National
Homelessness Relief and Prevention Strategy using disaster relief funds
both to provide the homeless with immediate health protection and housing
and to prevent further homelessness.Canada has signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights guaranteeing everyone’s right to "an adequate standard
of living … including adequate food, clothing and housing." Homeless
people have no decent standard of living; our governments are violating
these Human Rights.Despite Canada’s reputation for providing relief to people made
temporarily homeless by natural disasters, our governments are unwilling
to help the scores of thousands of people in Canada condemned to homelessness.Morally, economically, socially, and legally, we cannot allow
homelessness to become "normal" in Canadian life. Inaction betrays many
thousands of us to a miserable existence and harms our society for years
to come.

WHY DECLARE AN EMERGENCY?

Disaster Now

Crisis facilities are already overcrowded. People are ending up in
the streets, parks, and alleyways

Youth and families with children are the fastest growing population
in shelters

Major cities search far beyond their boundaries for temporary housing
for homeless families

Governments should implement a "1 per cent solution": All levels
of government now spend an average 1 per cent of their total budgets
on housing. Adding another 1 per cent, and henceforth devoting the total
2% to long-term housing, would take the single largest step towards
eliminating homelessness.

Governments should maintain and fund social benefits and services
on a stable, long-term basis

Crisis shelters and aid agencies should receive stable, long-term
funding until the homeless are housed

The
homeless situation is worsening daily at an alarming rate, as the
factors creating it remain unchecked.Any
delay in firmly and massively responding will only contribute to compounding
the present crisis of suffering and death which is already an epidemic
which no civilized society can tolerate.

3.
The Scale of the Disaster

"Based
on the findings of the study, homelessness is an increasing problem in
Metropolitan Toronto, affected by multiple causes interacting with each
other, i.e., a decline in affordable rental stock (especially rooming
houses) in centrally located areas, low vacancy rates in the rental market,
high levels of unemployment, and provincial policies regarding de-institutionalization."

This was not written last week or last year. It is from a 1982 Metro
Toronto Government study:

No Place to Go – A Study of Homelessness in Metropolitan Toronto:
Characteristics, Trends and Potential Solutions, 1982.
In 1982 there were 1,500 emergency hostel beds in Metro. Now there are about
5,000.

Incomes of Renters – DECREASING

Amount Spent on Rent – INCREASING

Information collected during the 1996 Census helps explain why more tenants
are having trouble paying their rent. Renters in Canada have less real
income than five years ago and they are spending more on housing as percent
of their household income. As a group, renters have about half the household
income of homeowners.

In 1996 32% of all 1.5 million households in the greater Toronto
area (the ‘Toronto CMA’) were paying more than 30% of their household
income on housing; up from 27% in 1991.

In 1996 44% of all 615,000 renters in greater Toronto were paying
more than 30%; up from 33% in 1991.

The average income of the households spending over 30% on housing
in greater Toronto fell 23% in constant (inflation adjusted) dollars,
from $35,000 in 1991 to $27,000 in 1996.

The gap between the average household income of owners and renters
is very large and continues to grow. For Ontario’s households in 1996:
Owners, $66,000; Renters, $33,600.

With such a large gap between the incomes of owner and renter households
the private sector cannot build more housing for most renters and
make money. There is no effective marketdemand for new
rental housing. There is tremendous socialneed for more
adequate, appropriate and affordable rental housing. Without a significant
government role, no new rental housing will be built for those most in
need.

Rental Housing Starts – Near ZERO

Social Housing Starts – ZERO

Housing starts in the greater Toronto area, as monitored by the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation, demonstrate the inability of the housing
market to supply rental housing. In 1996 the last of Ontario’s social
housing units were built, 782 units out of a total of 19,000 housing starts
that year. The private sector built only 146 rental units in 1996. Virtually
all the starts were for owner occupiers – who have sufficient income to
pay for new housing.

Last year was a much better year for housing construction in the greater
Toronto area. There were a total of 25,600 housing starts. However, there
were zero social housing starts and only 252 private sector rental housing
starts. 99% of house construction was for the ownership sector.

Poverty in Canada – INCREASING

Poverty Profile 1996 is the latest in a series of reports on poverty
in Canada by the National Council of Welfare based on data collected by
Statistics Canada.

In 1996, five years after the last recession, 5.1 million Canadian children,
women and men lived in poverty. While the rest of the economy enjoyed
modest growth year after year, the overall poverty rate reached 17.6 percent.
In 1989 the House of Commons resolved to eradicate child poverty by 2000.
Only four years before that target date, child poverty had risen to 20.9
percent, the highest in 17 years.

A comparison of poverty rates for renters and homeowners in 1996 finds
almost 40% of all renters in poverty and about 20% of all homeowners.

In terms of the actual dollars that poor people had to live on, a total
of 268,000 families and 423,000 unattached people had 1996 incomes that
amounted to less than half the poverty line.

The United Nations designated 1996 the International Year for the Eradication
of Poverty. The Council notes that: "Sadly, poverty statistics for 1996
show that Canada came no where near to meeting that goal."

The report also noted that "winning the war on poverty is not an unrealistic
goal."

"Statistics Canada estimates that the cost of bringing all poor
people out of poverty in 1996 would have been $17.8 billion. That’s
a huge, but not outrageous amount of money in a country where the federal,
provincial and territorial governments spent $386 billion in 1996 and
where the value of all goods and services produced was $820 billion."Shelter Use in Toronto – INCREASING

On any given day in 1996, about 3,100 different individuals used
Toronto’s emergency shelters. This is an increase from 2,600 in 1994
and 2,100 in 1988.

In 1996, almost 26,000 different people used Toronto’s emergency
shelter system.

Families accounted for 13 percent of shelter cases in 1996
but represented 46 percent of the people using shelter beds in
that year.

In 1996, 19 percent of the people using shelters – 5,300 – were children.

More than 80,000 people (about 4% Toronto’s population) are at risk
of becoming homeless (people spending over 50% of their income on rent
or living in extremely precarious situations).

On any given night in Toronto

– over 3,000 men, women and children are staying in an emergency
shelter,
– about 37,000 qualified applicants are on a waiting list for subsidized
housing, and
– about 40,000 additional people are precariously housed – some of
whom will become homeless.
Assistance for Toronto’s Poor &
Unemployed – DECREASING

In 1996 36% of Toronto’s renter households lived in poverty – an
increase since the early 1990s recession ended (poverty among homeowners
was 7.2% in 1996).

In the late 1980s, only 3% of the City’s population received social
assistance; at the end of 1996, 8% (compared to 3% in the rest of the
GTA)

Changes in the federal unemployment system mean that only 40% of
the unemployed in the Greater Toronto Area received benefits, compared
to 68% in 1993.

Changes in provincial social assistance mean that fewer people are
eligible and benefits were cut by 21.6% in 1995. Medical and drug benefits
that were available for the working poor have been eliminated, as has
the $37-a-month pregnancy allowance. Fewer disabled people will be eligible
for benefits due to a new more restrictive definition of disability.

Rental Housing Demand/Need in Toronto
– INCREASING

Based on normal population increases, an additional 7,500 to 9,500
rental housing units are needed in the GTA each year between 1996 and
2001.

Rents in licensed rooming houses tend to be about $450 per month;
rent in accessory apartments (often illegal basement conversions) are
from $400 to $750; the housing allowance component of social assistance
for single person is $325.

Rental Housing supply in Toronto
– DECREASING

Between 1990 and 1995 apartments at the lower end of Toronto’s rental
market have been lost:

4,500 bachelor apartments renting under $500 per month;

27,600 one-bedroom apartments renting for under $600 per month;

22,200 two-bedroom apartments renting for under $700 per month; and

4,100 three-bedroom apartments renting for under $800 per month.

There are many hundreds of illegal, unlicensed and often unsafe rooming
houses.

The number of licensed rooming houses is steadily declining: 603
in 1986; 393 in 1998.

Subsidized housing is also being lost: since 1992 the Province has
canceled rent supplement subsidies for 700 apartments; scattered site
detached and semidetached family public housing units are now being
sold; CMHC has allowed subsidized private sector apartment building
owners to buy their way out of low-rent agreements – a loss of 6,100
low-rent units.

No new social housing is being built: an average of 2,100 units per
year were built in Toronto over the past two decades. The Federal government
ended its supply program in 1992; the provincial government did the
same in 1995.

4.
A Life and Death Situation for Some; Serious Long-Term Health
Consequences for Most

"The
relationship between homelessness and health has been clearly demonstrated
in numerous studies over the past decade.Homelessness
is injurious to people's health and the situations in which homeless
people are often compelled to live may be as hazardous to their health
as the streets themselves.Homeless
people are at increased risk for tuberculosis and other respiratory
diseases, trauma, major mental illnesses, alcoholism and its sequel,
drug abuse and dependence, sexually transmitted diseases, and a host
of other relatively minor, but nonetheless impairing, respiratory,
dermatological, vascular, nutritional, and psychiatric disorders.
What is more, the sick and disabled are often those who become homeless.Homelessness
should be recognized asa
major public health concern."

From: "Editorial: It's Time for the Public Health Community to Declare
War on Homelessness," American Journal of Public Health, Feb.
1997.

Toronto’s health care professionals report that the overall health status
of Toronto’s homeless population is declining due to overcrowding in the
hostels, more people who must sleep outside year round, and, due to social
agency funding crises, less access to adequate food, transit tokens (to
access emergency services), and hygiene supplies.

there are increasing reports of death related to homelessness

the longer people homeless, the more likely they are to suffer serious
and long term mental and physical health problems

high rates of infectious disease is now very common, including bronchitis,
pneumonia, serious skin infections, gastro-intestinal infections, Hepatitis
B and C, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (commonly reported
by health care workers and research)

All human rights violations are acts that disregard human dignity and
the rule of law. The moral and ethical codes of the World’s religions,
international law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and federal and provincial human rights legislation, oblige Canadians
and Canadian governments to refrain from acts, omissions, or other measures
that result in violations of human rights.

The very existence of people who do not have any housing is by itself
a most serious human rights violation. Societies with homeless people
amidst great prosperity have established and are maintaining homeless-creating
processes – day-to-day ‘normal’ mechanisms which result in people becoming
unhoused and remaining unhoused, often for long periods of time. These
are dehousing processes.

A household’s right to adequate housing is violated under the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights when the nation fails
to continue making progress towards adequate housing for everyone to the
extent that its resources allow. All nations, provincial/state and municipal
jurisdictions must set achievable and measurable benchmarks for progressive
realization of economic, social and cultural rights. These rights must
be enjoyed equally, without discrimination.

In 1990, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued
a legal opinion which defines when a state is in violation of its obligations
relating to the right to adequate housing. One form of violation is a:

general decline in living and housing conditions, directly attributable
to policy and legislative decisions by States parties, and in the absence
of accompanying compensatory measures, would be inconsistent with the
obligations found in the Covenant. (General Comment No. 4, Paragraph
11)
In a related UN report on actions which constitute housing rights violations,
the following five apply to the Canadian and Ontario governments:

Acts of racial or other forms of discrimination in the housing
sphere;

Adoption of legislation or policies clearly inconsistent with housing
rights obligations, particularly when these result in homelessness,
greater levels of inadequate housing, the inability of persons to
pay for housing and so forth;

Repealing legislation consistent with, and in support of, housing
rights, unless obviously outdated or replaced with equally or more
consistent laws;

Unreasonable reductions in public expenditures on housing and other
related areas, in the absence of adequate compensatory measures;

Overtly prioritizing the housing interests of high-income groups
when significant portions of society live without their housing rights
having been achieved;

See the Appendix for the recent UN review of Canada’s record of human
rights compliance.

Membership:
Toronto Disaster Relief Committee

The following individuals contributed to the drafting of the
State of Emergency Declaration. The places they work or organizations
they belong to are provided for identification purposes only.

David Hulchanski, Professor of Housing, U of Toronto

Trevor Gray, AIDS ACTION NOW

Brent Patterson, AIDS activist

Beric German, Street Health AIDS outreach

Maurice Adongo, Street Health mental health outreach

Paula Dolezal, Street Health mental health outreach

Peter Rosenthal, lawyer and U of Toronto Professor

John Andras, co-founder of Project Warmth, Vice-President Research
Capital Corp

Presentation to the Committee, Cathy Crowe, RN, on
behalf of the City of Toronto’s Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today at your first meeting.
I'm here today to outline why I believe that you should consider Toronto's
crisis of homelessness a disaster for the purpose of receiving emergency
federal relief.

In April I brought this concept to the Advisory Committee on Homeless
and Socially Isolated Persons for several reasons.

First, our committee was formed in what I now, in retrospect, consider
to have been the early stage of an acute disaster. Disasters, natural
or man-made, are not restricted to countries in the tropics, but their
consequences are similar. In late1995-early 1996 our committee heard evidence
on the following warning signs of impending crisis: serious overcrowding of our day and overnight shelter system, a 38% tuberculosis
infection rate among the homeless, clusters of freezing deaths of homeless
people, a rise in overall morbidity including malnutrition and the spread
of infectious diseases and a rise in the number of homeless deaths.

Second, after 26 years of nursing in the inner city of Toronto, I now
turn to disaster and relief effort literature to inform my nursing practice.
For example, the most common health problems I see are related to trauma,
tuberculosis transmission, spread of acute respiratory infection, hunger,
malnutrition, diarrhea and lice and more serious than any of the above,
deprivation of the human spirit. Similar to a refugee camp.

Third, displaced persons suffer physically and emotionally - witness
the impact of the emergency shelters on people in Eastern Canada during
the ice storm. Although I considered offering assistance during the ice
storm I faced a heart wrenching reality, in fact a shocking reminder -
that people homeless in this city have been hit by a disaster, and many
have been living a disaster for up to ten years. New victims of the disaster,
whether it be due to eviction, unemployment or family violence, face dismantled
health and social supports, an emergency shelter system that is full and
a society that blames them for even being there.

Finally, Council will eventually receive a report from the Golden Task
Force. I must ask - does the City have the budgetary capacity to deal
with any Task Force recommendations that have a significant cost associated
with them? I suspect not. We need external financial relief now.

I believe I speak for many when I say that in early 1998 we have reached
a point as a City and as front-line workers where we have to realize that
we are failing miserably responding to this disaster. The homeless numbers
are growing exponentially. As recently as Friday our committee heard of
the expected shortfall of 2000 emergency hostel beds. As of last week,
the system is full to capacity and in overflow mode for women and children.
The reality is we are not in a position to solve this crisis on our own.
Around the world, forced economic migration to large metropolises has
led to similar crises around homelessness. In Europe and in the United
States, federal funding has been put in place to respond to a national
issue that has local ramifications. In Canada, Toronto is clearly in the
most serious position with respect to homelessness. I believe that the
City should seek emergency federal relief specifically to create low-cost
housing and to develop emergency shelter that can adequately meet demands.

I would like to suggest the following recommendations to you.

1. That the committee begin its deliberations from the premise that homelessness
has reached crisis proportions in the City of Toronto and is unsolvable
without emergency federal or provincial relief.

2. That the committee request a staff report which would include: a)
the various pieces of provincial and federal legislation which deal with
emergency planning and or disaster relief; b) Canadian precedents whereby
government relief was provided for shelter or housing such as the post
World War II housing creation; c) analysis of the new City of Toronto
Emergency by-law as to whether it provides the means to respond to the
emergency needs (food, safety, shelter and health care) that face a significant
proportion of the Toronto public who are homeless.

3. That the committee report to Council with recommendations on how to
proceed with discussions with the federal and provincial governments on
this matter.

Cathy Crowe, RN

Fact Sheet # 2

City of Toronto, Commissioner of Communityand Neighbourhood Services

The Homeless Crisis in Toronto
June 1998

From: Appendix II of Homelessness and
Request for a "Declaration of Disaster," report from the City of Toronto
Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to the Council Strategy
Committee for People Without Homes, Toronto, June 29, 1998.

Estimating the number of people who are homeless is difficult although we
do know the number is rising. In 1997, about 28,000 people used the emergency
shelter system in Toronto. People actually living on the street are growing
in number according to street patrol and outreach workers. The number of
"hidden homeless" i.e., people doubled up in housing or living in unstable
or substandard housing and therefore at risk of becoming homeless, are even
more difficult to estimate. At least 100,000 households with incomes below
$20,000 pay more than 30 percent. of their income on rent.

Toronto has experienced an increased demand for emergency shelter (usage
has more than doubled in the last four years) along with accompanying
shortages in supply. The system operates at full capacity most nights
throughout the year with many hostels reporting overcrowding. While single
adult men continue to comprise the majority of hostel users, trends show
that mother-led families and youth are the fastest growing users of Toronto’s
hostel system.

In October 1997, Toronto’s shelter system was unable to accommodate the
expected demand for the upcoming winter. In response, several overnight
and day shelters were opened, operating at full capacity most nights.
These sites were designed as a temporary measure only. The closure of
most of these sites and the Out of the Cold winter shelter programs at
the end of May 1998, has left the hostel system once again dealing with
a bed shortage. Hostel Services Division has made a concerted effort to
accommodate for the loss of these beds by enhancing the bed capacity of
some shelters and attempting to secure additional motel space.

Toronto’s homeless crisis is also characterized by an increased demand
for community-based emergency services such as drop-in centres and meal
programs along with a proliferation and institutionalization of volunteer
based, ad hoc responses such as the Out of the Cold winter shelter program
and food banks.

Fact
Sheet # 3

UNITED NATIONS: Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights

Reviewing Canada’s Compliance
in 1993

by J.D. Hulchanski

In May 1993 the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights considered Canada’s report concerning its compliance with the human
rights covered by Articles 10 to 15 of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. These articles cover rights associated with
the family, women and children, an adequate standard of living, physical
and mental health, education, and participation in cultural life.

Considering "Canada's enviable situation" with regard to available resources
for the progressive realization of the rights recognized in the treaty,
the Committee expressed "concern about the persistence of poverty in Canada"
and the fact that there "seems to have been no measurable progress in
alleviating poverty over the last decade, nor in alleviating the severity
of poverty among a number of particularly vulnerable groups." It noted
that "there seems to exist no procedure to ensure that those who must
depend entirely on welfare payments do not thereby derive an income which
is at or above the poverty line" and that there is widespread "hunger
in Canada and the reliance on food banks operated by charitable organizations."

In terms of housing, the Committee noted "the omission from the Government's
written report and oral presentation of any mention of the problems of
homelessness" and that "the Committee is surprised that expenditures on
social housing are as low as 1.3 per cent of Government expenditures."
The following are selections from the Committee’s 1992 report on Canada.

On no measurable progress in alleviating poverty:12. In view of the obligation arising out of article 2 of the Covenant
to apply the maximum of available resources to the progressive realization
of the rights recognized in the treaty, and considering Canada's enviable
situation with regard to such resources, the Committee expresses concern
about the persistence of poverty in Canada. There seems to have been
no measurable progress in alleviating poverty over the last decade,
nor in alleviating the severity of poverty among a number of particularly
vulnerable groups.

On the welfare rates which are below the poverty line:

15. The Committee is concerned that there seems to exist no procedure
to ensure that those who must depend entirely on welfare payments do
not thereby derive an income which is at or above the poverty line.

On the failure to address widespread housing discrimination:

18. The Committee learned from non-governmental organizations of
widespread discrimination in housing against people with children, people
on social assistance, people with low incomes, and people who are indebted.
Although prohibited by law in many of Canada's provinces, these forms
of discrimination are apparently common. A more concerted effort to
eliminate such practices would therefore seem to be in order.

On the omission of any mention of the problems of homelessness:

19. The Committee notes the omission from the Government's written
report and oral presentation of any mention of the problems of homelessness.
The Committee regretted that there were no figures available from the
Government on the extent of homelessness, on the numbers of persons
evicted annually throughout the country, on the lengths of waiting lists
or the percentage of houses accessible to people with disabilities.
Reviewing Canada’s Compliance,
November 1998

Compliance with economic, social and cultural rights is reviewed every
five years by the UN. In November 1998 Canadian government officials,
as well as representatives from Canadian non-governmental organizations,
such as the National Anti-poverty Organization (NAPO) and the Centre on
Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA), will appear before the Committee
again. The Committee has received Canada’s 1998 report on compliance and
on June 10, 1998, in preparation for the November hearings, sent the federal
and provincial governments a long list of additional questions. These
include several relating to housing and homelessness.

Homelessness in Canada: 1998 United Nations Human Rights
Questions41. Please provide any available data on the extent of homelessness
in various cities in Canada. At what point would the Government consider
homelessness in Canada to constitute a national emergency?

44. According to information provided to the Committee from Statistics
Canada, the percentage of government expenditure on housing has declined
since 1993. There has been extensive media coverage of a growing crisis
of homelessness in Toronto, Vancouver and elsewhere, emphasizing primarily
charity-based efforts to address the problems. Is the Government applying
the "maximum of available resources" to eliminating homelessness and
does it agree that guaranteeing the right to housing is a core responsibility
of Governments and a matter of the highest priority?

55. The Committee understands that a high percentage of discharged
psychiatric patients are ending up homeless. Please provide as accurate
evidence as is available in relation to this problem and explain what
is being done to address it.

56. Please provide any information available on the particular health
problems of the homeless, including tuberculosis rates, and identify
any barriers faced by the homeless in getting access to appropriate
health care.

Housing in Canada: 1998 United Nations Human Rights Questions

42. Please provide information on any disparities between Aboriginal
housing and other housing with respect to piped water, flush toilets,
need for repairs and other indicators of adequacy.

43. At paragraph 275, the report states that federal funding for
new social housing units was terminated in 1993. How can this be justified
when so many households are unable to secure appropriate housing in
the private market?

45. Could the Government of Ontario provide information as to how
many households have been forced to move out or been evicted for non­payment
of rent because of the cuts to social assistance?

46. The Committee understands that new legislation in Ontario will
remove rent control on any apartment which is rented to a new tenant.
Does the government of Ontario expect any additional increase in evictions
because of this measure?

37. The Committee has received information that food bank use has
continued to increase in Canada and has approximately doubled over the
last 10 years. Can the Government explain why the number and use of
food banks has continued to increase? Does the Government consider the
need for food banks in so affluent a country as Canada consistent with
article 11 of the Covenant?

38. Please provide information as to the number of people paying
more than their shelter allowance for housing and indicate whether
paying for housing out of money needed for food may lead to hunger
in these households.

39. What proportion of children who use food banks go hungry and
how often do parents go hungry?

Income Assistance in Canada: 1998 United Nations Human Rights
Questions

16. Please indicate whether as a result of the repeal of the Canada
Assistance Plan Act (CAP) by Bill C­76, people deprived of basic
necessities under provincial or territorial social assistance schemes
no longer have any legal recourse in federal law under the Canada Health
and Social Transfer (CHST).

17. Why were the standards and entitlements maintained in health
care but not in social assistance?

18. Have provinces responded by cutting social assistance rates or
entitlements? Please provide information from each province about
changes that have occurred from April 1995 to the present day, and
any effect on the extent or depth of poverty.

19. To what extent does the revoking of CAP represent a retreat from
the idea of financial assistance when in need as a universal entitlement,
as described in previous reports to the Committee?

20. With respect to the negotiations by the Ministerial Council on
Social Policy Reform and Renewal mentioned in paragraph 86 of the
report, are the Federal and provincial Governments committed to restoring
legal enforceability of the right to adequate financial assistance?

21. Describe any monitoring procedures established by Governments
as well as non­governmental agencies to measure the effect of
the 40 per cent ($6 billion) cut in the amount of cash transferred
by the Federal Government for social assistance, health and post­secondary
education between April 1995 and the end of fiscal year 1992/2000.
What common effects have become evident throughout Canada?

We the jury wish to express our condolences to the families of Eugene
Upper, Irwin Anderson, and Mirsalah-Aldin Kompani. Cognizant of the plight
of the three gentlemen who are the focus of this inquest and the many
factors which may have contributed to their deaths such as addictions,
mental illness, homelessness and cold harsh environment, we the jury have
endeavoured to consider the aspects of the evidence presented to us.

We learned from the evidence that there is the growing problem of meeting
the needs of a portion of our population who may have similar situations
and circumstances as the three gentlemen aforementioned.

We have been admonished to weight the evidence impartially, laying no
blame on anyone.

We then hope to present to all concerned our group effort achieved to
the best of our ability to arrive at our verdict and recommendations.

Our goal is to bring about a workable solution to prevent further similar
deaths if the present situation is allowed to continue.

We urge all levels of government and society at large to make a concerted
and serious effort to alleviate the burden of this group of people to
allow them to live in dignity.

We present these recommendations to achieve this goal.

[Over fifty recommendations were made
by the Jury. Virtually none of the recommendations relating to provincial
and federal responsibilities has been implemented. In the areas of housing
and social services there was a virtual denial from the responsible provincial
ministers that they need to do anything. Even the provincial Coroner’s
Office made the minimum response to the jury’s recommendation (#23) that
a report be issued on the progress of implementation after six months.
The Chief Coroner’s response came on July 9, 1997, almost six months late.
It is a simple summary of letters received. Recommendation #17, calling
for an open truly representative process involving all levels of government
in developing a plan of action has not been implemented.]

Inquest Recommendation 17: Housing Plan of Action

Recommend an advisory committee be struck including representatives
from all levels of government, private and non-profit landlords and
housing developers, community organizations, tenants and homeless people.

The goal should be to identify successful models of affordable and
supportive housing and community supports and develop a plan of action
to ensure that the homeless, in particular those with substance abuse
and/or mental illness, have access to appropriate housing and support
services.

Funding should be provided by the appropriate governmental ministries
to carry out this plan.

National Legislation for
Assisting the Homeless: A Comparison of Canada,
the US and UK

From: Questions and Answers about Canada’s Homeless.by J.D. Hulchanski, Raising the Roof: Solutions for Canada’s
Homeless, 1998.
A WWW document at: http://www.raisingtheroof.org
Canada does not have a national strategy for addressing the problem of homelessness.
Unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, Canada has no national
legislation and no national programs addressing the fact that many Canadians
find themselves without housing for either short or long periods of time.

In the United States the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act
is a major federal legislative response to the problem. It was signed
into law by President Reagan in July 1987, during the International Year
of Shelter for the Homeless. (In contrast, the Canadian government held
a conference in Ottawa.) The McKinney Act originally funded fifteen programs
providing a range of services, including emergency shelter, transitional
housing, job training, primary health care, education and some permanent
housing.

The McKinney Homeless Assistance Act has been amended four times (in
1988, 1990, 1992 and 1994). These amendments have, for the most part,
expanded the scope and strengthened the provisions of the original legislation.
In 1990, for example, the Shelter Plus Care program was established, which
provides housing assistance to homeless people with disabilities, mental
illness, AIDS, and drug or alcohol addiction. In 1992 the Rural Homeless
Housing Assistance grant program and the Access to Community Care and
Effective Services and Support (ACCESS) programs were created. In 1994
Congress amended the Education of the Homeless Children and Youth program
and the Surplus Property Program.

Funding for McKinney Homeless Assistance Act programs has increased from
US$350 million in 1987 to $1.5 billion in 1995. The National Coalition
for the Homeless reports that the Act has created valuable programs that
have saved lives and helped hundreds of thousands of Americans to regain
housing stability. A 1995 evaluation concluded that the programs "have
assisted significant numbers of homeless persons to regain independence
and permanent housing and at a reasonable cost." All the various evaluations,
however, have noted that the resources allocated to the McKinney programs
are insufficient to meet demand. In addition, the Act mainly funds emergency
measures – a response to the symptoms not the causes.

In the United Kingdom the 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act imposed
the legal duty on municipal authorities to provide permanent housing for
a variety of people in need. The legislation made a distinction between
statutorily and non statutorily homeless people. Statutorily homeless
households, following assessment by a municipal authority, qualify for
permanent rehousing in public or non-profit social housing. The homeless
households that qualify for assistance include people with dependent children,
women who are pregnant and single people who are ‘vulnerable’, in that
they cannot be expected to fend for themselves. In the UK, statutorily
homeless households often have to wait for permanent social housing to
become available. While statutorily homeless people are waiting in temporary
accommodation (such as leased accommodation, and bed and breakfast hotels)
for their permanent homes, they are still regarded as homeless.

Neither the U.S. nor the U.K. legislation are models for Canada. They
are simply examples of the national level of government contributing to
the effort to address the problem.

In 1990, when Finance Minister Paul Martin was an opposition Member of
Parliament, he co-chaired a National Liberal Caucus Task Force on Housing.
The report, Finding Room: Housing Solutions for the Future (May
1990), contains many excellent recommendations. One recommendation was
the following:

"The Task Force recommends that the Conservative government immediately
convene a National Conference on the Homeless with participation from
all levels of government, the non-profit sector and the private sector
to set real objectives and policy responses for the eradication of homelessness
in Canada. It is vital that the homeless play a significant role in this
process. As well, the federal government must initiate discussions with
provincial Ministries of Health and/or Community and Social Services to
ensure that the immediate and long-term needs of the homeless are addressed."
(page 18)
The press release which accompanied this fine 47 page analysis of Canada’s
housing problems quotes Mr. Martin as complaining that the "federal government
has abandoned its responsibilities with regards to housing problems"
and that the "housing crisis is growing at an alarming rate and the government
sits there and does nothing." Mr. Martin added that "the lack of
affordable housing contributes to and accelerates the cycle of poverty,
which is reprehensible in a society as rich as ours."

A number of members of Raising the Roof where consulted
by Mr. Martin and his co-chair, M.P. Joe Fontana, back in 1990. We agreed
with his recommendations back then and we continue to urge that they be
implemented. Mr. Fontana, in that same May 14, 1990 press release, defines
an appropriate role of the federal government, one which we fully concur
with.

"The federal government’s role would be that of a partner working
with other levels of government, and private and public housing groups.
But leadership must come from one source; and a national vision requires
some national direction."Fact
Sheet # 6

Government Expenditureon Housing Programs:

About 1% of Total Spending

How much do Canadian governments spend on housing programs? Statistics
Canada provides the following information on direct government expenditures
on housing. This does not include indirect expenditures through the provision
of special tax breaks (i.e., tax expenditures).

The total housing expenditures of the federal, provincial and local governments,
as a percentage of all budget expenditures of these governments, in the
1994/95 fiscal year was: 1.07%.

HOUSING EXPENDITURES AS A % OF:

Consolidated federal,
provincial, territorial and local government expenditures